Friday, January 30, 2015

Proposal: Trustfallen

Passes 7 to 2. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 02 Feb 2015 03:42:24 UTC

Add a rule to the Ruleset called “Trust”, as follows:

Each Crewmember other than the Ship’s Computer has a level of Trust. This is represented as an integer, tracked with a field called Trust in the GNDT. If a Crewmember has never had their Trust level set, it defaults to 5.

When a Crewmember is part of the Responder Team for a Mission that succeeds, their Trust increases by 2. When a Crewmember is part of the Responder Team for a Mission that fails, their Trust decreases by 3. If the Pilot posted a Roster Comment on a Mission, instead, none of its Responder Team gains or loses Trust as a result of that Mission.

If at least two Crewmembers are Disabled, and all Androids are Disabled, the Human with the lowest Trust may make a Declaration of Victory for this Dynasty. If at least two Crewmembers are Disabled, and all Humans are Disabled, the Android with the highest Trust may make a Declaration of Victory for this Dynasty. While more than one Crewmember meets these conditions, none of them may make a Declaration of Victory. The Ship’s Computer may veto such Declarations of Victory if it sees that they are illegal based on private information; such a veto renders the Declaration invalid.

Add the following to the rule called “Trials”:

Should a Trial succeed, the Crewmember accused within it has their trust set to 0.

Add the following to the rule called “Command Roles”:

On Demands or Trials, votes of DEFERENTIAL reflect the EVC of the Mediator, rather than the EVC of the Ship’s Computer. Should the Mediator vote FOR a Demand or Trial that succeeds or passes, or AGAINST a Demand or Trial that fails, their trust is increased by x, where x is the number of EVCs of DEFERENTIAL on that Demand or Trial. Should the Mediator vote AGAINST a Demand or Trial that succeeds or passes, or FOR a Demand or Trial that fails, their Trust is decreased by x in the same way.

As a Daily Action, the Doctor may Examine any Crewmember other than themself by posting a comment to this effect in the GNDT, and increasing or decreasing their Trust by 1. The Doctor may not Examine the same Crewmember more than once per week.

Should a Crewmember’s Trust be reduced to below 0, that Crewmember is stripped of any Command Roles assigned to them.

Set the Trust of all active Crewmembers to 5.

People seemed to be objecting to specific provisions of these props rather than to the general idea; this attempts to fix those provisions.

As Josh conjectured, the bit about the Pilot being part of the Response Team was intended to make the Pilot equally accountable for any change in Trust due to a Mission if and only if they were the ones who picked the team. It also explicitly places equal suspicion of sabotage on them should a mission be compromised (which one could do already anyway, by proxy). If people have better ideas about how to add that accountability without making it into an advantage, feel free to amend.

As for Kevan’s question, yes, the idea was to give Humans with low Trust the shot at victory. It gives people valid reasons to act in suspicious ways, which is valuable in any Werewolf-style game. “Always get this number as high as possible, and older players get a head start” is less interesting to me than “here’s a number; manipulate it for your own ends.”

Comments

Sylphrena:

30-01-2015 20:22:59 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

30-01-2015 23:14:22 UTC

imperial

Josh: he/they

30-01-2015 23:48:20 UTC

for

RaichuKFM: she/her

30-01-2015 23:54:24 UTC

“may make a Declaration of Victory” isn’t the same thing as “has achieved victory”, is it? against

ayesdeeef:

31-01-2015 00:06:49 UTC

against Good catch Raichu. Anyone can make a Declaration of Victory at any time.

Josh: he/they

31-01-2015 00:12:17 UTC

While true, that’s hardly game-breaking. Seems much easier to pass and patch.

RaichuKFM: she/her

31-01-2015 00:17:18 UTC

Yes, it is. And one should refine how the veto on DoVs work, as instead of marking a DoV that was invisibly illegal, it should just let the Computer say “No, you did not achieve victory” but keep the DoV itself legal.

I’d have proposed a patch and voted FOR, but I’m unsure on the Proposal anyways.

RaichuKFM: she/her

31-01-2015 00:18:25 UTC

Er, to clarify, I meant that yes, this would be easier to patch, and the Veto should fail a DoV, instead of just being the way of informing everyone said DoV was illegal.

Bucky:

31-01-2015 02:05:21 UTC

imperial

Brendan: he/him

31-01-2015 02:36:24 UTC

If we’re going to take this to the limit of Blognomic magic-word pedantry, allow me to point out that you’re wrong: a player may not make a DoV at any time, only when “they believe that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty.” Said victory is only actually achieved when the DoV is ratified.

As for precedent, “may make a Declaration of Victory” was the only wording used in the victory conditions of the First Metadynasty of Rodlen. “Declare victory” and “achieve victory” have been used interchangeably in both the Second Dynasty of Yoda and the Fifth Dynasty of Kevan—which is to say, the previous Werewolf dynasty.

RaichuKFM: she/her

31-01-2015 03:29:50 UTC

You are right that it is true that one can’t actually make a Declaration of Victory at any time.

I would say you are wrong about being allowed to make a Declaration of Victory being the same as achieving victory, regardless of precedent. It is just allowing one to make a Declaration of Victory, overriding the requirement that they must think they have achieved victory. Those voting should still not vote for, as they haven’t legitimately achieved victory; they could still vote for, but it’d be allowing people a cheesy way to plausibly vote against such a DoV.

ayesdeeef:

31-01-2015 04:29:49 UTC

You can only make a declaration of victory if you think you have achieved victory? You can think you have achieved victory at any time. Pedantry.

Sphinx:

31-01-2015 04:43:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

31-01-2015 09:14:11 UTC

for

A victory-point resource that you have to expend to help out the team seems fair and interesting enough, I was just thrown by using “Trust” as a metaphor for it. Maybe there’s a better word out there.

Wie is de Mol? has a nice mechanic for encourating suspicious behaviour - the sabotaging player (or, at least, the scriptwriters signing in their name) occasionally presents a secret side-mission to one of the others, challenging them to do something unhelpful or elaborately unnecessary in exchange for a private reward.

Bucky:

01-02-2015 04:48:36 UTC

CoV against because this increases the OI while the broken version of Mob Justice would be in effect if it passed.

Bucky:

01-02-2015 20:49:06 UTC

CoV imperial because Mob Justice failed.